|
I mentioned it a while ago, and it has cropped up a time or two in conversation. Somewhere in the heaps of books i own (i had a thing for many years of buying anything off used racks just to see it) there is a game with a really good and simple encumberance system.
The basics:
Weight and Volume are combined into a single unit called the Stone. I think they had a fancy table for doing the conversion, but it was simple enough.
Oh and before anyone mentions it, I know a stone is a real measure of weight = 14 lbs.
In addition to full stones, there were two smaller weights. They were tabulated as * and **, though i thinkthey were called rocks and pebbles in the rules (because gamers are a silly lot)
10 * was one stone
and 100 ** was one stone
anything less than a full stone was ignored for encumberance (how burdened are you by the difference between 10 pieces of paper or 12)
Most common items were 1 or 2 stones, for example a dagger is 1, most hand weapons are 2.
Many items had their weight listed as a/b where a is the weight equipped, and b is the weight stowed. Armor is far less encumbering when worn properly then when carried in a back pack, for example.
Speaking of backpacks, and other storage containers, they had some extra stats. In addition to their own weight, they had a capacity, and a size limit. For example a normal backpack weight 1 stone, it could hold up to 8 stones of items, but no item could be more than 2 stones. The weight of anything carried in the backpack was halved for figuring encumberance. Other containers would have similar effects, like a baldric reducing a 2 stone sword to 1 stone when not in the hand.
For d20 uses, carrying up to your strength in stones would probably be a light load, up to twice your strength a heavy load, and thrice your strength would top out the heavy load. (may be way off here)
Since the numbers are smaller, and much more uniform in general, and all but the largest piles of tiny items are neglected, the system seems like it would work well.
At the table no one records they picked up an 8 pound hammer during the adventure, because they have to look up that weight, where as if you can assume a hand weapon is 2 stones, it flows easy.
Commentary is welcome
I really like this concept. Encumberance is something which makes a big impact on the game if paid attention to (and thus, it should be paid attention to), but it so often gets ignored because the system for it (if you can even call it that) is clunky. How many items in the DMG even have a weight listed?
It would take just a bit of work to convert, but probably not too much. I'm interested in seeing what other people think about the system, conversion to it, and the balance of it. I think it would work great, personally.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I like the concept too. Our group is one of the ones who largely disregards things like encumberance for the most part just because it's too much work to keep track of (not to mention the encumberance limits are rather pathetically low).
I agree that a worn or carried item should not be as encumbering as they would be if they were stowed. In fact, I may start deciding that worn and carried items only count for half their weight towards encumberance in my games.
My biggest beef with the current system is this: Backpacks, bedrolls, and waterskins are necessary for pretty much any adventurer who's planning to go more than a day from town. That's 11 lbs, by the PHB guidelines. The light load for a character with an 'average' strength (10) is 33 lbs. Your basic gear, not including weapons, armor, ammo, and tools accounts for 1/3 of your carrying capacity?!? Low-strength characters like archers, bards, and rogues have serious issues on this front. No one wants to exceed their light load unless they're wearing medium or heavy armor (in which case it doesn't really matter). However, with the system as it is, a rogue with 10 Strength carrying his backpack, waterskin, bedroll, studded leather armor, and a rapier has already reached his 33 lb. limit! What about rations? Thieves' tools? A ranged weapon? Ammo for said weapon? Rope? He's doomed! Even with a 12 Strength it becomes difficult to carry that much! The system is badly in need of improvement. Perhaps if you come up with something valid and functional (not to mention easy to use), I will consider using it in my games. I'm looking forward to it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My biggest beef with the current system is this: Backpacks, bedrolls, and waterskins are necessary for pretty much any adventurer who's planning to go more than a day from town. That's 11 lbs, by the PHB guidelines. The light load for a character with an 'average' strength (10) is 33 lbs. Your basic gear, not including weapons, armor, ammo, and tools accounts for 1/3 of your carrying capacity?!? Low-strength characters like archers, bards, and rogues have serious issues on this front. No one wants to exceed their light load unless they're wearing medium or heavy armor (in which case it doesn't really matter). However, with the system as it is, a rogue with 10 Strength carrying his backpack, waterskin, bedroll, studded leather armor, and a rapier has already reached his 33 lb. limit! What about rations? Thieves' tools? A ranged weapon? Ammo for said weapon? Rope? He's doomed! Even with a 12 Strength it becomes difficult to carry that much! The system is badly in need of improvement. Perhaps if you come up with something valid and functional (not to mention easy to use), I will consider using it in my games. I'm looking forward to it.
Invest in the latest gear-carrying technology: your friend the mule.
I enforce encumbrance religiously, and the party ends up with a pack animal by 2nd level.
It gets eaten by 5th.
But I love this system.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Invest in the latest gear-carrying technology: your friend the mule.
I enforce encumbrance religiously, and the party ends up with a pack animal by 2nd level.
It gets eaten by 5th.
But I love this system.
Actually, my characters' first investment in any game run by someone who intends to hold to the encumberance rules strictly is a Heward's Handy Haversack.
Of course, at the higher levels, it becomes essential to pick up a leather T.A.R.D.I.S.
|
|
I thought of another benefit of this system. Since it is not tied directly to size and weight, there is no scaling issue.
A dagger is 1 stone. A dagger for a giant is 1 stone for a giant, dagger for a halfling is 1 stone for a halfling. Cool, huh?
---
Anyway, general guidelines:
** items
sheets of paper, sewing needles, rings, fish hooks, tinder twigs.
In general, any item you can hold a dozen or so of in one hand, without any effort or container
* items
scrolls, wands, arrows
In general, any item you can hold 3 to 5 of in one hand
1 Stone items
light weapons, bucklers, torches, lanterns, light armors worn, outfits being carried
in general, any item made to be carried in one hand
2 stone items
one handed weapons, light shields, medium armors worn, light armors carried, tools
in general, any item made to be used one handed as opposed to just carried.
3 stone items
two handed weapons, heavy shields, medium armors carried
4 stone items
tower shields, heavy armors worn
it is a start
|
I really like this system. I especially like how it takes volume into account, it's always bothered me how sometimes, the D&D rules make a bunch of references to volume, like in the description of Bags of Holding. How am I supposed to know the volume of the objects a character is carrying? It's not listed anywhere, and I certainly don't have access to assorted fantasy equipment to measure (and even if I did, I don't think I'd take the time to do it).
I like how this system combines the weight and volume, so that the Bag of Holding descriptions can just say: The Bag of Holding Type I can hold 25 Stone and be done with it. It's also nice to have certain items feel useful. Everyone takes a backpack on character generation just because it doesn't really make sense if you don't have one, but it doesn't really do anything, besides give you a vague limit to its contents, which (as posted above) no one really follows anyway.
I'm thinking of further elaborating on this, and possibly using it in my next campaign! Thanks!
I like it, but I'd for sure make up a new name for the units. As you pointed out, a "stone" is 14 lbs. Keeping that name for a different unit does nothing but cause confusion. (We're re-naming "feet" as "inches." So now there's 12 inches to the inch.") How about "cobbles" (referring to the terrestrial particle size of equivalent diameter, per the modified Wentworth scale)?
I'm interested, though from a different perspective--I'm looking for a way to communicate in-game and give things a more authentic/original feel than saying "Such and such weighs 50 pounds." This also has the problem in my PbP games or translating to my players that use the metric system.
I found the following system, that might serve as input for this discussion...
As an aside, I'm looking for similar alterations in terms of distance and time. I want it to be simple to use/understand, however, to avoid having to always have to explain the conversion. I'm likely going to use Finger (1"), Hand (6"), Pace (5') and League (3 miles--walking distance for a Move 30' in one hour) for distance. This has the benefit of being able to say "The enemy is 5 paces away" and having this translate directly to 5 squares or "The castle is 5 leagues to the east" and knowing that's 5 hours travel time. Haven't settled on a whole system for time as yet, but am thinking about Sun (one day), Moon (one month), and Season (three months). Still need something for seconds, minutes, hours, and years.
I like it, but I'd for sure make up a new name for the units. As you pointed out, a "stone" is 14 lbs. Keeping that name for a different unit does nothing but cause confusion. (We're re-naming "feet" as "inches." So now there's 12 inches to the inch.") How about "cobbles" (referring to the terrestrial particle size of equivalent diameter, per the modified Wentworth scale)?
However, you have to take into account how many people are likely to know that bit of information regarding the "precise" weight of a "stone." For many, it will simply be a more oganic, in-game way of talking about weight (as Erian_7 said).
I would vote to keep the name "stone."
This has the benefit of being able to say "The enemy is 5 paces away" and having this translate directly to 5 squares or "The castle is 5 leagues to the east" and knowing that's 5 hours travel time. Haven't settled on a whole system for time as yet.
That absolutely makes perfect sense. Again, in the interest of clarity and consistency of units, WotC already publishes descriptions that refer to 5-ft. units as "squares" or "spaces," so it's easy enough to keep that terminology. Realistically, it takes a normal person 2 steps (left-right) to move 5 ft. That's sometimes referred to as a "pace," or a "full pace," but it's really more of a double-step.
In geological field methods classes, it's important to know how many of one's paces are in a hundred feet; I step almost a full meter in 1 stride ("left..."), which is the longest ever recorded at Clemson University's field camp (most people are more like 2 ft., especially when encumbered). Yao Ming doesn't cover 5 ft. in a single step.
Use of "league" makes perfect sense as-is. I'd for sure keep that.
However, you have to take into account how many people are likely to know that bit of information regarding the "precise" weight of a "stone."
ALL Brits would know it; that's how they refer to their own weight (those who aren't trying to be all "Continental" by using kilos).
I'll likely keep Stone as a general term, and likely add something long the lines of Pebble and Grain for smaller units. As with the time and distance units above, however, I'd want the players to be able to quickly understand the meaning of a term in game use to avoid table delays--I like realism, but I don't like unnecessary delay so there has to be a balance.
|
|
This has the benefit of being able to say "The enemy is 5 paces away" and having this translate directly to 5 squares or "The castle is 5 leagues to the east" and knowing that's 5 hours travel time. Haven't settled on a whole system for time as yet.That absolutely makes perfect sense. Again, in the interest of clarity and consistency of units, WotC already publishes descriptions that refer to 5-ft. units as "squares" or "spaces," so it's easy enough to keep that terminology. Realistically, it takes a normal person 2 steps (left-right) to move 5 ft. That's sometimes referred to as a "pace," or a "full pace," but it's really more of a double-step.
In geological field methods classes, it's important to know how many of one's paces are in a hundred feet; I step almost a full meter in 1 stride ("left..."), which is the longest ever recorded at Clemson University's field camp (most people are more like 2 ft., especially when encumbered). Yao Ming doesn't cover 5 ft. in a single step.
Use of "league" makes perfect sense as-is. I'd for sure keep that.
BLASPHEMER!!!! A pace is the distance covered from the position of one foot to the position of the same foot again (2-steps), it is not arbitrary
To each their own; I like clear units with one definition each. Of course, I'm the guy who claims that the cookie motto "Chips as Big as Boulders!" is false advertising, because a "boulder" by definition is greater than 256 mm in diameter. Just be careful there are no scientists or foreigners in yoor group (particularly geologists, and most particularly British geologists), or there will be absolutely no end to their confusion!
Realistically, it takes a normal person 2 steps (left-right) to move 5 ft. That's sometimes referred to as a "pace," or a "full pace," but it's really more of a double-step.BLASPHEMER!!!! A pace is the distance covered from the position of one foot to the position of the same foot again (2-steps), it is not arbitrary
Note my disclaimer. Believe me, I'm fully aware of the proper definition, but most people are just like the folks on this thread, and don't use "pace" to mean "pace." (By "sometimes," I meant "correctly," but didn't want to sound snotty.)
I'm quite interested in this system you're building here. I especially like the idea that you can fairly accurately guess the weight of something just by looking at it, instead of having to flip through books to find it. And that backpacks now have a real use!
I've written up a few things into tables for myself just to help get my head around it. I kinda like the idea of doubling the weight of armour when it is being carried instead of worn. I previously thought about just increase it by one stone though. That works fairly well too. Any thoughts?
Having the armour and weapons fit into the same categories is a slight stretch, but very nice for ease of use.
Light weapon, light armour worn = 1 stone each
One handed weapon, medium armour worn = 2 stones each
Two handed weapon, heavy armour worn = 3 stones each
I like how that works. Easy to remember, and fairly accurate.
As for weapons, I don't know if we should double their weight when you're carrying them. Maybe leave the weight the same as when you're wielding them, but - as you mentioned - you can buy baldrics that reduce that weight.
Having the armour and weapons fit into the same categories is a slight stretch, but very nice for ease of use.
Light weapon, light armour worn = 1 stone each
One handed weapon, medium armour worn = 2 stones each
Two handed weapon, heavy armour worn = 3 stones eachI like how that works. Easy to remember, and fairly accurate.
As for weapons, I don't know if we should double their weight when you're carrying them. Maybe leave the weight the same as when you're wielding them, but - as you mentioned - you can buy baldrics that reduce that weight.
I think this risks coming up on a problem folks already complain about with D&D; that sometimes things are /too/ simple. In short, with the above simplification, you either ignore the burden of the armor, or you make the weapons very burdensome. Remember, heavy armor is supposed to be about as cumbersome as carrying a heavy load. Are two handed weapons really going to be equally cumbersome?
Mind you, I like the stones system. It's a simple and elegant way to handle encumberance, and with some work I think it would be a great alternative to what D&D currently uses. (Maybe just make the simplification that 1 stone equals 10 pounds, rounded off - ie, 10-14 pounds is 1 stone, 15-24 pounds is 2 stones, etc). That would make something like a dagger (a light weapon) equal to a pebble (1/10th stone).
I'd also like to point out that the current system D&D uses for encumberance isn't without its merits. D&D has always been a game where some math is applied, and some common sense /should/ be applied. For example, if you have a party member who's weight allowance lets him carry out everything and the kitchen sink, that doesn't mean you should let him replicate the old satire comic of the adventurer with a mound of furniture roped to his back.
The current rules also provides for [b]Max Pull[b]. That's where wagons come in. In the game, Max Pull equals five times max lift. If you want to figure out if someone (or some critter) can easily pull a load without slowing the group down for overland travel, just figure the light/medium/heavy loads for whoever, or whatever, is doing the hauling, and multiply by five. Tally up the weight of all the crap being hauled, and voila, you have the burden of your cart/wagon.
That's also, IMO, why bags of holding lists the weight allowance of the bag, the size of the opening, and the volume of the interior space. It's not because anyone's expected to know the volume of a suit of armor. It's because they expect, at some point, someone's going to want to take that gigantic painting home with them. Or they /really/ like the decor of some room they're looting, and they want to take all that nice antique furniture home with them. /That's/ why the opening size is listed, and the interior volume is given. That stuff is big and bulky, and they want DMs to know whether their crazy player can actually haul that stuff out with current equipment.
If it's just personal gear - armor, weapons (make sure they're sheathed), doodads and widgets - then don't worry about the volume. The max weight is all you need.
By the same token, if it's some guy trying to haul everything on his back, it's perfectly easy to say "You know, that trunk is full of gold and it's as big as you are. I know you can /lift/ it, but it's far too awkward to carry by yourself."
I think the current rules use weight and size because it's not abstract for anyone. Nobody has to learn what a pound is, nor do they need to learn what inches or feet are. Anyone coming to the game already knows these things, and life experience should be sufficient to tell them "You know, Bob can't carry that four poster canopy bed by himself."
While I really like the stones system and would adopt it in a heartbeat if someone posted up the stats/rules for backpacks and other containers, I have to agree that I think the encumberance system which already exists is more serviceable than many people believe because it gets abused so often. This mainly comes in the form of max load/lift over head/push and drag. Just because you can lift 300 pounds doesn't mean you can lift everything which is 300 pounds. For example, there's a huge difference between lifting a 300 pound weight that's designed for such purposes, and lifting a 300 pound cow. You may be able to hoist the weight without trying too much, but the cow remains firmly on the ground unless you manage to get some form of leverage.
Obviously, large enough Strength scores (25+ and such) could pull off such inhuman feats, along with monstrously sized beings (giants, for example), because that's more or less under the category of common sense.
At any rate, I also look at the max loads, max lift, max push, as just that: maximum. If something weighs more than that, there's no hope of you lifting it yourself. However, things approaching that maximum may still require a Strength check to move. Being within your maximum limits means there's a chance for you to move it, not automatic success. Typically, you can take 20 with such things so it's largely a moot point, but the fact remains that moving extremely heavy items is slow, cumbersome, and not something that many people would be willing to do manually unless they were getting some major compensation.
Simple point being: the current encumberance system isn't quite as disserviceable as one might initially assume, it just gets abused and mishandled a lot. Nevertheless, I would still jump at the chance to adopt a workable "stones" system.
|
|
Quick thought before i go out to dinner...
Generally the lighter, more flexible armors tend to be able to be packed away, and don't become much more encumebering.
Meanwhile rigid steel breast plates are kinda hard to stow.
In either case, historically, a full trained knight was able to get into the saddle using all while wearing all but the heaviest "late model" armors (thick full plates)
I will start working on a detailed list of items.
Remember, heavy armor is supposed to be about as cumbersome as carrying a heavy load. Are two handed weapons really going to be equally cumbersome?
True. That's probably crossing the line between simplifying and oversimplifying. Dragonmann said that this system is from a game he's seen before, so I'd really like how they classified things. And if we could find that, it'd mean we wouldn't have to write it all up.
I'd also like to point out that the current system D&D uses for encumberance isn't without its merits.
Yeah, I do agree with you there. As you and Saern point out, if you use common sense, the current system is quite workable.
I think the current rules use weight and size because it's not abstract for anyone. Nobody has to learn what a pound is, nor do they need to learn what inches or feet are. Anyone coming to the game already knows these things, and life experience should be sufficient to tell them "You know, Bob can't carry that four poster canopy bed by himself."
Using common sense is a big part of this, and the physical size of an object is certainly an easy way to tell how unwieldy and awkward it would be to carry. As Saern says, you shouldn't be able to instantly lift your maximum load. That is the absolute most you can carry. It's gonna put some strain on you to lift it.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you that "Nobody has to learn what a pound is, nor do they need to learn what inches or feet are". Being Australian, we use kilograms, metres and centimetres. Feet and inches are mainly used for height, and we usually just write in centimetres for that. For me, moving my mindset to pounds, feet and inches isn't a natural thing. I guess that's one of the reasons I support the stones system. I think I've seen a conversion from lbs to kgs somewhere, though. Maybe Unearthed Arcana? Anyway, just thought I'd point out that there are a lot of people who don't take naturally to pounds as a unit of measure. Having said that, I do agree that if you get too abstract, it can make things more complicated instead of simpler.
EDIT: Ah, the metric conversion was in Rules of the Game. For those interested, here are the links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.
C'mon guys. What's with this thread? It's dropped dead twice now. I know there's been the 4e announcement and the Pathfinder release going on, but let's get back into this :)
Anyone got any more input? I know there are (were?) several people posting here, so hopefully there's still some interest :)
I'm gonna have to disagree with you that "Nobody has to learn what a pound is, nor do they need to learn what inches or feet are". Being Australian, we use kilograms, metres and centimetres. Feet and inches are mainly used for height, and we usually just write in centimetres for that. For me, moving my mindset to pounds, feet and inches isn't a natural thing. I guess that's one of the reasons I support the stones system. I think I've seen a conversion from lbs to kgs somewhere, though. Maybe Unearthed Arcana? Anyway, just thought I'd point out that there are a lot of people who don't take naturally to pounds as a unit of measure. Having...
A Kg is 2.2 lbs, 2.5 centimeters is 1 inch, and 30cm is 1 foot.
Now, let me qualify my earlier statement with my assumptions: I'm in the U.S., WotC is a U.S. company, and I'd even dare to go so far as to say their primary target customer base is also in the U.S.. So when I say "nobody" I'm pretty much limiting the scope of my statement to the U.S.
I know full well not everyone who plays D&D lives here. I know a good chunk (most?) of the rest of the world uses the metric system (and honestly, I'd like it if we did too). I also know that not everybody who plays D&D speaks english - at least not as a first language.
That said, I think it'd be nice if they'd partner with a publisher outside the U.S. who would do international conversions and use the metric system. Not sure what they'd convert a 5' square to... 2 meters, maybe?
A Kg is 2.2 lbs, 2.5 centimeters is 1 inch, and 30cm is 1 foot.
Now, let me qualify my earlier statement with my assumptions: I'm in the U.S., WotC is a U.S. company, and I'd even dare to go so far as to say their primary target customer base is also in the U.S.. So when I say "nobody" I'm pretty much limiting the scope of my statement to the U.S.
I know full well not everyone who plays D&D lives here. I know a good chunk (most?) of the rest of the world uses the metric system (and honestly, I'd like it if we did too). I also know that not everybody who plays D&D speaks english - at least not as a first language.
That said, I think it'd be nice if they'd partner with a publisher outside the U.S. who would do international conversions and use the metric system. Not sure what they'd convert a 5' square to... 2 meters, maybe?
I also think that the primary audience is in the U.S. - though like you, I'm not sure - but in that post I just thought I'd share the reasons why I'm leaning more towards the "stones" system rather than leaving things as they are. That is, it already takes me a little bit (maybe only a few seconds, but still) to convert lbs to kgs, so having the "stones" system isn't really a further stretch for me. Hope that makes sense, and I didn't mean to antagonise :) By the way, those links I posted show WotC's take on making things metric.
Anyway... I guess getting caught up on this stuff is kinda pointless, seeing as we both like the stones system and this thread is about making that system. I definitely see where you're coming from, though :)
Does anyone know the book/RPG that this system originally appeared in? In Dragonmann's first post, he said it's in his pile of books somewhere, but does anyone know the name of it, so we might be able to do some searching?
Nah. I wasn't antagonized. Just explaining my position.
And Hah! They /did/ use 2m squares. :)
Anyway, I still think it would be nice for international sales if the books came with those conversions in the printed product, rather than forcing everyone to print out some document they may or may not think to search for on the WotC site.
Aaaaaaannd, back on topic: "Everybody must get stoned!"
Just how much should this system be simplified? Should /all/ encumberance come from the stones system? Or should it be like it is currently in that someone's armor type and their weight encumberance are separate entities?
|
|
Well I have personally always hated the encumberance by armor system, because it is built completly on game balance and not on reality.
Wearing a chain shirt was far more taxing then wearing a much heavier plate suit, because the chain hangs all its weight on your shoulders while the plate has the load dispersed by straps and such.
So I figure mobility, read max dex, should come from armor, and speed should come from load.